tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post4722003055444905653..comments2018-03-15T04:34:37.321-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Blasphemy ChallengeAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-14001473957699536922008-01-25T16:30:00.000-07:002008-01-25T16:30:00.000-07:00Want to know the truth about Frank Walton? This i...Want to know the truth about Frank Walton? <A HREF="http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/hamurookis_irrational_precepts/10036" REL="nofollow">This is all you ever need to know about Frank Walton the stinky turdball =)</A> <BR/>Also, for further education, please visit this informative blogsite because<A HREF="http://atheismsucks-sucks.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Frank Walton Stinks</A><BR/>Thanks!Frankie Walltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18256448758496311592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-60665472817966572722007-03-01T07:00:00.000-07:002007-03-01T07:00:00.000-07:00On the issue of the History Channel blaming the Da...On the issue of the History Channel blaming the Dark Ages on Godlessness, please note the attached History Channel marquee, "600 Years of Degenerate, Godless, Inhuman Behavior"<BR/><BR/>Ugh. Well, I gave the history channel the benefit of the doubt, but now I think it was ill-given.Shawn Wilkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18308205724057373941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-55494739757421660022007-03-01T05:59:00.000-07:002007-03-01T05:59:00.000-07:00FrankNote that I identified the paragraph that you...<B>Frank</B><BR/><BR/>Note that I identified the paragraph that you are responding as 'just an aside' - meaning that I consider the points interesting, but not that important.<BR/><BR/>You are correct. There was no harm in "Atheist Alonzo Fyfe" rather than "Ethicist Alonzo Fyfe." Indeed, you could have just written, "Alonzo Fyfe" or kept the original "Atheist Ethicist."<BR/><BR/>However, the choices we make tell others about our values. Your choice indicates that identifying me as an atheist has some measure of importance. It is probably not significant, but it is interesting.<BR/><BR/>And, yes, I acknowledge that your mistake regarding the intent of my original article was a mistake. However, just as we can tell something of a person's character by the choices they make, we can also tell something by the mistakes that they make. Given that I wrote the purpose of that post in the title, it is particularly interesting to inquire as to the motive of that particular mistake.<BR/><BR/>People often see what they want to see. That you saw my posting as a criticism of The Blasphemy Challenge means that you <I>wanted</I> to see it as criticism of The Blasphemy Challenge - that you wanted to see it in this light so strongly that it blinded you to what I actually wrote.<BR/><BR/>Relatedly, the "mental disorder" claim is not an assumption of the blasphemy challenge. I could challenge people to post statements on YouTube where they stated that they believed that there is (or, alternatively, is not) intelligent life somewhere else in the universe. I do not need to assume that those who hold the opposite view suffer from a mental disorder to offer such a challenge. I simply need to assume that I think they are mistaken.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the claim had been made in association with The Blasphemy Challenge. Furthermore, the claims that I made here can be applied to that mistake.<BR/><BR/>In fact, the post you cited is one in which I did just that. In that post, I examined the claims that theism is a mental illness and identifying a child as being raised in a particular culture as "child abuse", gave my reasons for holding these claims to be a mistake, and gave some thought to the motivation behind this mistake.<BR/><BR/>Then, I took your claim that I called The Blasphemy Challenge unnecessarily insulting, showed it to be a mistake, and gave some thought to the motivation behind that mistake.<BR/><BR/>As an ethicist, this is part of what I do. It's standard fare in this blog.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29396850846426172982007-03-01T04:03:00.000-07:002007-03-01T04:03:00.000-07:00A small comment/correction that occurred to me as ...A small comment/correction that occurred to me as I read your post...<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>The blasphemy challenge is similar to “coming out” in the homosexual community – an invitation to homosexuals to stand up and state publicly, “I am a homosexual, a human, with every right to the fair and equal treatment that should be given to all humans who are not a threat to their neighbors.”<BR/><BR/>I would say that the quote should have ended after "all humans", without the addition of "who are not a threat..."<BR/><BR/>As I'm sure you know, many Christians would think having a gay person living next door to them (or down the block, in the neighborhood, in their town, city, state, country - well, you get the idea) IS a threat. Of course, they can't really justify that fear, but their inability to define or explain it, or provide any valid evidence to support it, doesn't prevent them from using it to support discrimination against gays.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I'm a Humanist - I just had to.... ;-)Rev. Moehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14125606089717025025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63961830583650144002007-03-01T00:48:00.000-07:002007-03-01T00:48:00.000-07:00Hi Alonzo,Just as an aside, I am curious as to why...Hi Alonzo,<BR/><BR/><B>Just as an aside, I am curious as to why they could not have written, "Ethicist Alonzo Fyfe on the blasphemy challenge." After all, I have written 1 post on the existence of God and 500+ posts on ethics. So, I do not understand the decision to put more emphasis on my atheism than on my ethics.</B><BR/><BR/>*SHRUGS* We could have put in "ethicist." But I think it's a tempest to the teapot. After all the name of your blog is <B>"atheist ethicist."</B> So, I don't see the harm.<BR/><BR/><B>I never wrote anything about The Blasphemy Challenge itself. Yet, this site posted a blog entry saying that yet another atheist had condemned The Blasphemy Challenge.</B><BR/><BR/>Well, you renounced the underlying assumption of the blasphemy challenge did you not? RRS believed that theism is a mental disorder. <BR/><BR/><B>However, I still fail to see why the requirements of intellectual integrity were not strong enough to prevent them from misrepresenting my earlier post to start with.</B><BR/><BR/>Well, jiminy jillickers, Alonzo! Did you not say I made a mistake? You seem to have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge that... but with some reservations, of course. Typical.<BR/><BR/>Would it make you happy if we took away the post, Alonzo-poo? Perhaps, we can change the title to <BR/><BR/><I>"Ethicist Alonzo Fyfe says RRS's 'theism is a mental disorder' is unjustifiable insulting, but he favors the blasphemy challenge.... with some reservations"</I>?<BR/><BR/>FrankFrank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.com